Did religious tensions contribute significantly to the fall of the western empire?
It has been said that the real history of man is the history of religion. This conviction is central to many of
the texts that focus on the late antique period. Since Gibbon linked the rise of Christianity with the
collapse of the Roman Empire there has been a long tradition of associating religious change with the fall
of Rome. This remains present in modern scholarship as various theories concerning the damaging role of
religion in late Roman society have been advanced by historians. However, this essay will specifically
examine the extent at which religious tensions contributed to the fall of the Empire. Due to the limited
remit of this paper the focus will inevitably be on the more significant and widespread religious conflicts.
Consequently, the paper will be split into two parts. The first section will consider tensions between
pagans and Christians, and will challenge the traditional consensus by contending that pagan resistance
to Christianity was in fact muted. The second section will examine the religious divisions between
orthodox Christians and those defined as heretics and will maintain that, whilst in some regions this
conflict did contribute to the breakdown of imperial authority, its influence was more incidental than
direct. Overall, this essay will demonstrate that, due to the contemporary sources at our disposal and
subsequent flawed interpretations, religious tensions can be overstated and should not be regarded as a
significant cause in the collapse of the Roman Empire.
The older historiography contends that tension between Christians and Pagans was not only
present in late Roman society but also highly damaging to the imperial state.1 Texts that adhere to this
narrative describe the fourth century as a period in which pagans and Christians vied for supremacy.2
Moreover, imperial authorities exacerbated the situation by pursuing a policy of religious coercion. This
reached its climax during the reign (379-395) of the fiercely devout Emperor Theodosius I. As a result of
his policies, the state officially imposed Christianity through legislation such as that of 391, which banned
sacrifice and all pagan ceremonies.3 This heightened the tensions between the two faiths, illustrated by
the growing unrest within the cities. It can be argued that this represented more fundamental social
1
Epitomised by Momigliano 1963.
Bloch 1963, p.193.
3
Jones 1964, p.938.
2
changes, as Christianity asserted itself as the majority religion in the Empire. By the end of the fourth
century the aggressively populist elements of the Christian faith reached their peak. Enabled by
Theodosius’ legislation, paganism was demolished from below ‘as a wave of religious violence swept
through town and countryside alike’.4 Christian mobs targeted the symbols of polytheism including
shrines, temples, and monuments, and even lynched prominent members of pagan communities; most
famously the female neo-platonic philosopher Hypatia in 415.5
For historians like Brown these ‘acts of violence showed that the cities themselves had
changed’.6 Christian bishops had usurped the authority of traditional leaders indicated by Ambrose of
Milan who, in a particularly revealing passage, asserted that ‘the bishops are the controller of the crowds
and of course they are moved by insults to god and his church’.7 Emperors had to be increasingly aware
of this new pressure group, who were now regarded as the mouthpiece of the urban lower classes.
Ambrose bullying Theodosius into revoking a decision to rebuild a synagogue without compensation
provides testament to the influence bishops could exert over secular rulers.8 This ‘Christian factionalism
led to a perceptible increase in the climate of violence’, which undermined the cohesiveness of urban
settlements. Furthermore, it has been argued that these upheavals provoked a widespread pagan
resistance and revival movement.9 This centred on the city of Rome and its aristocracy who believed that
the ‘safeguarding of the Roman tradition by necessity involved the defence of the old religion’.10 It has
been suggested that these pagan elites actively supported the western usurper Eugenius, who had
sympathies for the polytheistic religions. Therefore, his battle against the Christian Theodosius at the
River Frigidus has been portrayed as both the last attempt to contest the Christianization of the empire,
and the final defeat for the pagan cause.11
4
Brown 1971, p.104.
Av. Cameron 1993, p.64.
6
Brown 1992, p5.
7
Ambrose, Ep. XL.6.
8
Jones 1964, p.949.
9
Detailed discussion of this thesis in Alfoldi 1952.
10
Bloch 1963, p.194.
11
Al. Cameron 2011, p.93.
5
Proponents of this argument maintain that ‘these coercions helped to destroy the Roman Empire
by intensifying the very disunites they were designed to eliminate’.12 Tensions between Christians and
pagans proved to be subversive on both a macro and micro level. In urban areas the rise of the Christian
bishop in opposition to the pagan aristocracy altered the traditional model of roman cities, in which a
citizen body was led by urban notables who formed part of the imperial bureaucracy. In the midst of this
conflict the local populace increasingly favoured spiritual leadership, which undermined historical ties of
patronage and power and created damaging internal weaknesses. Perhaps more seriously, the
suppression of paganism by force as in the case of Frigidus wasted valuable material resources and
exposed the empire to external threats.
Whilst the logic behind this theory is coherent, the evidence for pagan and Christian conflict is far
from convincing. For the majority of the fourth century Christian emperors followed a policy of general
toleration. This is demonstrated by a law of Constantius II, preserved by the Theodosian code, which
declares that ‘it is our wish that the temple buildings located outside the city walls should remain
untouched and undamaged’.13 The position of pagans was, therefore, highly ambiguous but most
suffered no disabilities as a result of their beliefs. Whilst the reign of Theodosius I undeniably witnessed
an increase in religious intolerance, the associated violence was small scale, unofficial and localised
almost entirely in the eastern half of the Empire. As Brown indicates, waves of religious bigotry were far
more common in Alexandria or Constantinople than the semi-pagan city of Rome.14 Consequently, the
importance of religious violence can be overstated, particularly in its influence in the west.
The role and motives of bishops during the period are also uncertain. In Christian sources they
are portrayed as the spearhead of a drive to destroy a pagan political monopoly in the cities.15 Indeed
there are many instances of rabble rousing bishops instigating attacks against the monuments of pagan
hegemony. Nevertheless, ‘the issue was not a straightforward conflict of religions’ and instead it should
be regarded as a struggle for a new style of urban leadership, which had more to do with power than
12
Grant 1976, p.162.
Lee 2000, p.96.
14
Brown 1971, p.111.
15
Brown 1992, p.73.
13
prejudice.16 Religious tensions were used as pretence by Christian leaders in order to increase their own
authority and as the empire became progressively Christianized, paganism was seen as a useful tool for a
political attack against a rival.17 Any analysis of late Roman society must look beyond this rhetoric and
should avoid attributing religious significance to conflicts that were primarily about urban dominance.
Furthermore, the upheavals associated with the rise Christianity and the subsequent reshuffle of local
factions ‘could not have been more consistent with the traditions of the Roman past’.18 The urban
aristocracy quickly adapted to the new circumstances and bishops were increasingly drawn from their
ranks. Far from upsetting the urban model there was very little change to the structures of civic life. After
a brief period of transition caused by religious division, a new equilibrium was reached in many towns not
long after the death of Theodosius.19 Thus, religious tensions did not significantly undermine the Roman
system.
In a wider sense, the idea of a pagan revival at the end of the fourth century can be brought into
question. The critical flaw of this theory is that the only contemporary sources to give an account of
pagan resistance were written by Christian authors. In the case of Frigidus and Eugenius’ usurpation, the
Monk Rufinus provides the classic interpretation of the battle as a conflict between pagans and
Christians.20 Through his perspective the pious Theodosius had been victorious whilst the pagan
sympathiser had been crushed. This shouldn’t surprise us as ‘in the Christian empire of the fourth century
the enemy of the state and the enemy of religion were explicitly united as one’. 21 Clearly, religious beliefs
and practices had become the central subjects of historiography. Consequently, Christian accounts such
as Rufinus’ should not be viewed as straightforward narratives, as they undoubtedly favour symbolism
and interpretation over factual details. This can be substantiated by the historical evidence as Eugenius
and the majority of his court were certainly Christian, whilst only a single pagan supporter, Nicomachus
16
Brown 1992, p.77.
Av. Cameron 1993, p.143.
18
Brown 1992, p.119.
19
Ibid., p.126.
20
Al. Cameron 2011, p.93.
21
MacCormack 1981, p.150.
17
Flavianus, can be identified.22 Moreover, contrary to Rufinus’ text, both the armies at Frigidus contained
a mixture of pagans, orthodox Christians and Arians. With this in mind, the assertion that 394 marked a
watershed in European religious history cannot be maintained, and although Frigidus was surely
damaging to the empire it was not the product of religious conflict.
The example of Frigidus demonstrates a greater problem with the ancient sources. The surviving
evidence of saint’s lives, monastic anecdotes and ascetic literature forms part of the ‘Christian discourse
of triumph’, which purposely emphasizes the Christianization process.23 This presents profound
methodological problems when assessing religious tensions in late Roman society. Whether consciously
or not both ancients and moderns often convey the impression of a religious struggle, however in reality
‘the official ban on pagan worship seems to have been submissively accepted’.24 Paganism by its very
nature was not much so much a religion as a loose collection of cults, myths and local practices and,
therefore, there could be no unified fight back. As Cameron asserts, ‘Roman paganism petered out with a
whimper rather than a bang’.25 In this respect, the suggestion that the late empire was brought crashing
down by a religious war is deeply unsatisfactory, as paganism cannot be said to have formed coherent or
recognizable opposition.
Interestingly it could be argued that the greatest source of religious tension was located within
Christianity itself. During the period, orthodoxy was defined by a series of ecumenical councils, and major
doctrinal deviations were labelled as heresies. Contemporaries regarded dissidence as a significant
problem, as ‘heretics and schismatics were wicked and criminal whilst pagans were merely in error’.26
Under the reign of Theodosius the state formulated more repressive measures, as laws against heresy
outnumbered laws against paganism by five to one.27 Heresies, although numerically negligible, caused
bitter divisions, reflected by Gregory Nazianzus’ description of a vicious debate at a church council; ‘in
their confused chattering not even a ruler backed by reverential fear and authority could have managed
22
Al. Cameron 2011, p.98.
Brown 1992, p.129.
24
Jones 1964, p.943.
25
Al. Cameron 2011, p.12.
26
Garnsey 1984, p.19.
27
Grant 1976, p.164.
23
to reason with them’.28 These groups stubbornly resisted attempts to impose orthodoxy, and at times
provided passive or even active support to usurpers and invaders who attacked the imperial regime.
Through this, it can be contended that heresies contributed to the collapse of the west as they
accelerated the forces of dissolution and disintegration.
There are some limitations concerning the degree at which heresies can be considered agents of
change. For instance, there was a considerable gap between the rhetoric of legislation and its practical
application. As Grant asserts ‘the imperial bark was somewhat worse that its bite’, and it is likely that
local rulers were often reluctant to enforce a divisive religious policy.29 Emperor Honorius himself
complained that his laws against heretics in North Africa were ineffective due to the ‘evil sloth of the
governors, the connivance of their office staffs and the contempt of the municipal estates’.30 Clearly, in
some of the localities governors wished to preserve religious harmony through permissive administration
that insured mutual coexistence, rather than bitter tensions, between various Christian groups.
Moreover, theological controversy was far more common and widespread in the east, and ‘Byzantine
emperors of the late fifth and sixth centuries found it increasingly difficult to keep ecclesiastical unity’.31
In particular, the conflict between monophysites and dyophysites was one of the most long lasting and
evenly contested doctrinal disputes.32 However, far from causing political collapse this controversy
coincided with a period of Byzantine expansion under the reign of Justinian. Consequently, the influence
of theological tensions in the west can be questioned and heresies should certainly not be regarded as a
monocausal explanation for Rome’s decline and fall.
Nevertheless, the Donatist heresy can be regarded as a specific example in which tensions
between opposing Christian groups did contribute to political collapse. The Donatists had their origins in
the Diocletianic persecutions of the early fourth century. After refusing to readmit those who had
surrendered the scriptures, the Donatists formed their own autonomous church. Frend has proposed an
28
Mass 2010, p.120.
Grant 1976, p.170.
30
Basil Ep.48.
31
Av. Cameron 1993, p.67.
32
Allen 2000, p.820.
29
interesting thesis that this heresy also contained elements of a social or national movement.33 This has
been criticised for ‘retrojecting the sentiments of the present age into the past’, and it would be
anachronistic to suggest that religion was anything other than the central issue for contemporaries.34
However, Donatism does seem to ‘represent the separatist trends prevalent during the late Roman
period’.35 Supporters of the heresy challenged the right of government to interfere in religious affairs and
backed the African pretenders Firmus and Gildo. Moreover, the religious struggle in North Africa also
acquired some features of a class war.36 The extremist branch of the Donatist church, the Circumcellions,
conducted a reign of terror against the propertied classes and catholic clergy, including the compulsory
freeing of slaves and the destruction of catholic estates. This created an environment of internal
instability and a society lacking a shared identity, which helps explain why North Africa proved to be so
susceptible to external threats; in particular the Vandal invasion of 429. Whilst there is no direct evidence
of the Donatists actively supporting the Vandal invasion, their very presence would have hastened the
Roman collapse.37 As the richest province in the west, Africa’s occupation by the Vandals would have had
severe repercussions for the rest of the empire and, as a result, tensions within Christianity indirectly
contributed to the fall of the west. Donatism represents Christian conflicts at their most subversive, and
demonstrates that when religious tensions are linked with secular issues, especially social polarisations,
relatively minor differences can be transformed into deep-seated hatreds with damaging implications for
the ruling regime.
In summary, the consequences of religious tensions can be exaggerated. The Christianization
process was gradual rather than sudden, and was met with very limited pagan opposition. The suggestion
of a widespread pagan revival at the end of the fourth century should certainly be abandoned, and we
should also avoid bestowing religious significance onto Frigidus or Eugenius’ usurpation. This requires a
more careful reading of the primary source material and recognition of its limitations. Whilst conflicts
within Christianity itself should not be viewed as the most significant agent of change, the tensions
33
Frend 1972, p.44.
Jones 1959, p.295.
35
Frend 1952, p.xii.
36
Jones 1964, p.970.
37
Frend 1952, p.302.
34
surrounding certain heresies, such as Donatism, did play a role in undermining the political
establishment. Historians often view religious beliefs in absolute terms, however it is important to
remember that ‘large numbers of the population simultaneously harboured sets of quite contradictory
beliefs’.38 Syncretism and the combining of different practices and attitudes characterized the period.
Therefore, we should not be surprised about the limited role religious tensions played in the late Empire,
as the divisions between religions themselves can be blurred.
Word Count: 2606
38
Al. Cameron 1993, p.144.
Bibliography
Primary sources
Ambrose Epistle XL.6 http://people.ucalgary.ca/~vandersp/Courses/texts/sym-amb/ambrseep.html#XL
(March 24th 2012)
Basil Epistle 48 in Saint Basil: the letters, edited and translated by Deferrari R. (Cambridge Mass., 1961) 1:314
Collections of primary source material
Lee A. D., Pagans and Christians in late antiquity: a sourcebook (London, 2000)
Mass M., Readings in late antiquity (London, 2010)
Secondary sources: Articles
Frend W. H. C., ‘Heresy and schism in the later Roman empire’, Studies in Church History 9 (1972), pp.1-20
Garnsey P., ‘Religious toleration in classical antiquity’, Studies in Church History 21 (1984), pp.1-28
Jones A. H. M., ‘Were ancient heresies social or national movements in disguise?’, Journal of Theological
Studies 10 (1959), pp.280-98
Secondary sources: Books
Alfoldi A., A conflict of ideas in the late Roman Empire (Oxford, 1952)
Allen P., ‘The definition and enforcement of orthodoxy’, Cambridge Ancient History XIV, pp.811-834
Bloch H., ‘The pagan revival in the west at the end of the fourth century’, in Momigliano A. (ed.), The conflict
between paganism and Christianity in the fourth century (Oxford, 1963), pp.193-217
Brown P. R. L., The world of late antiquity, AD 150-750 (London, 1971)
Brown P. R. L., Power and persuasion in late antiquity: towards a Christian Empire (Madison, 1992)
Cameron Al., The last pagans of Rome (Oxford, 2011)
Cameron Av., The later Roman Empire, 284-430 (London, 1993)
Frend W. H. C., The Donatist church: a movement of protest in Roman North Africa (Oxford, 1952)
Grant M., The fall of the Roman Empire (London, 1976)
Jones A. H. M., The later Roman Empire, 284-602: A social, economic, and administrative survey Vol II (Oxford,
1964)
MacCormack S., Art and ceremony in late antiquity (Berkeley, 1981)
Momigliano A., ‘Introduction: Christianity and the decline of the Roman Empire’, in Momigliano A. (ed.), The
conflict between paganism and Christianity in the fourth century (Oxford, 1963), pp.1-16